[members-discuss] Charging scheme 2025 proposal (logarithmic)

On 22 Apr 2024, at 13:03, Sebastien Brossier <sebastien at brossier.org> wrote:
> 
> On 20/04/2024 11:44, Claudius Zingerli wrote:
>> I think IPv6 allocations larger than /29 aren't very common. Your proposal again puts too much load on smaller LIRs.
> I generated this alternate simulation to address the concerns of those with IPv6 /29 and a very small amount of IPv4, but it is indeed worse for everyone else. Billing IPv6 in a fair way is not easy when 90% of LIRs are in the same category.
> 
> Honestly, I prefer my initial proposal. Or James A.T. Rice's proposal if we're not going to charge for IPv6 at the moment.

Hi Sebastien,


I am examining formulas which involve a fixed price, as well as charges for both IPv4 and IPv6, and wondering if there is anyone who can help calculate the impact of merging LIRs or moving addresses on these (obviously not exactly.)

Additionally, I have a question about whether membership is able to propose any version to these charges for voting, subject to a signature threshold, or if it is solely the board's responsibility.

-- dk@